(Ok ok ... the real quote is actually: "The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Invent It", and I actually think he also had that quote from someone else, earlier, but I forgot the name.)
This essay is--oddly--both threadbare and meandering, and has turns of phrase that look like they were kept from an earlier, tighter version, such as the second sentence's "may have [...] but by".
The article concludes, stating that LLMs are the “apotheosis of knowledge stripped of animating spirit and reduced to mere utility.” Maybe, but LLMs have far more utility than this directionless essay.
What a fun little essay. It takes a lot of skill to write such a nonlinear story of ideas and history, and to have the structure and the actual point emerge gradually like this. It also takes some attention and some faith on the part of the reader, and it sounds like a few people here got frustrated that it doesn't feel like a normal essay that tells you upfront where it's going and why.
One commenter saw the long second sentence and assumed that the author had messed up somehow, instead of clocking the heads-up that this is piece is going to be a bit unusual and demanding. We're slowly getting used to how LLMs keep every sentence short enough to digest without much effort.
An LLM could never write this, as others here have pointed out, at least not without some very involved, nonstandard prompting. I think it's going to be important for our brains to keep reading stuff like this that is structurally unique. It almost reads like a miniature Benjamin Labutut story.
> His empiricism dismissed in a single swipe all of the strange hermeticism and cracked occultism that marked the Platonism of the Renaissance in favor of a cold, calculated, and careful ethos of observation that ultimately did prove more effective in parsing the particulars of the material world (if not at assessing their value).
And still so
The scientific method stands alone as the singular technology produced by humanity that has never failed to produce a successful outcome
The Scientific rigor described in the Novum is the singular north star that can cover literally every possible question humanity has, should we be bold enough to actually insist on rigor and not succumb to “rationalism” or some other dualist nonsense
Interesting article. Assumes a fair amount of background knowledge of the reader that may not be reasonable and definitely has a unique style.
It is interesting that many of the comments critique it for being meandering, lacking in utility. I think the author is talented enough to write it that way intentionally. Its oblique direction and far flung references help make the point. The reactions against this style made the argument more compelling.
> that same positivism was leading less to liberation than to disenchantment, smashing the sacred icons and reducing the world to what can be instrumentalized, commodified, and calculated
9 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 534 ms ] thread(Ok ok ... the real quote is actually: "The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Invent It", and I actually think he also had that quote from someone else, earlier, but I forgot the name.)
One commenter saw the long second sentence and assumed that the author had messed up somehow, instead of clocking the heads-up that this is piece is going to be a bit unusual and demanding. We're slowly getting used to how LLMs keep every sentence short enough to digest without much effort.
An LLM could never write this, as others here have pointed out, at least not without some very involved, nonstandard prompting. I think it's going to be important for our brains to keep reading stuff like this that is structurally unique. It almost reads like a miniature Benjamin Labutut story.
And still so
The scientific method stands alone as the singular technology produced by humanity that has never failed to produce a successful outcome
The Scientific rigor described in the Novum is the singular north star that can cover literally every possible question humanity has, should we be bold enough to actually insist on rigor and not succumb to “rationalism” or some other dualist nonsense
It is interesting that many of the comments critique it for being meandering, lacking in utility. I think the author is talented enough to write it that way intentionally. Its oblique direction and far flung references help make the point. The reactions against this style made the argument more compelling.
> that same positivism was leading less to liberation than to disenchantment, smashing the sacred icons and reducing the world to what can be instrumentalized, commodified, and calculated